PRP discussion thread - Page 3

paleseptember · 2009-02-10, 09:31

Ahhhh, I'm getting crazy temperatures under full load. Like >95C on all four cores. At rest they drop back down to 70C.

Am going to have to clean the case asap, and maybe consider a better CPU heatsinkfanthing.

But, as I currently have a cold/flu/death/thing, and the five minutes spent downloading, installing, and watching the temps on the programme is the longest I've been out of bed in the past eight hours, that is a thought for tomorrow, when I'm lucid and actually able to string two thoughts together in a row. And type properly.

Jeff Gilchrist · 2009-02-10, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by paleseptember

Ahhhh, I'm getting crazy temperatures under full load. Like >95C on all four cores. At rest they drop back down to 70C.

That is definitely bad and probably going to lower the life of your CPUs. You can also try downloading Real Temp which measures a little differently than Core Temp, a good way to compare and make sure the readings are at least similar. Real Temp usually measure a little cooler but should be close.

PS: I hope you get over your death cold soon.

philmoore · 2009-02-23, 17:30

Good news - I double-checked 21 of Ben's results from February 9th and 10th when he reported throttling due to overheating, and all 21 of my residues agree with his.

paleseptember · 2009-03-04, 00:57

Somewhere during the 3.26M file we've hit the transition from FFT length 320K to 384K. I've taken a hit from 0.007s to 0.009s per iteration. Ouch.

Ah well, onwards we march :)

paleseptember · 2009-03-04, 09:38

Go engracio go! \o\ \o| |o| |o/ /o/

(I know full well that this will be deleted within a day or so, but every bit of encouragement helps, right?)

engracio · 2009-03-04, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by paleseptember

Go engracio go! \o\ \o| |o| |o/ /o/

(I know full well that this will be deleted within a day or so, but every bit of encouragement helps, right?)

Thanks Ben

Can't wait to be doing this again

philmoore · 2009-03-04, 17:45

Ben, you probably took a 20% hit increase, but rounding makes it look a little worse (0.007 to 0.009). Engracio's last reservation takes us into the million-digit range, and we are close to completing up to 900,000 digits! I'm hoping we can find another probable prime soon and speed up the progress. I just uploaded more work files.

philmoore · 2009-04-28, 16:42

Ouch, it looks like FFT size has increased again, from 384K to 448K. I am guessing that it may have happened somewhere in the middle of Engracio's current range, does anyone else have any data on that? On the other hand, my old Athlon XP system at home is still using 384K for the exponents in the 3.93-3.94M range, so I may shift a few exponents over to that, but it is slow, around 40 hours per test.

Jeff Gilchrist · 2009-04-28, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by philmoore

Ouch, it looks like FFT size has increased again, from 384K to 448K. I am guessing that it may have happened somewhere in the middle of Engracio's current range, does anyone else have any data on that? On the other hand, my old Athlon XP system at home is still using 384K for the exponents in the 3.93-3.94M range, so I may shift a few exponents over to that, but it is slow, around 40 hours per test.

I have a 2^3911320+40291 and 2^3921064+40291 that are using 448K FFTs and 2^3925684+2131 and 2^3916024^2131 using 384K still.

The 448K FFTs are taking 0.008 sec per iteration while the 384K ones are taking 0.006/0.007 secs.

Jeff.

engracio · 2009-04-28, 19:44

Yea Phil, I've just glanced on the wu's and they are still in the 384K range at 3.83m.

philmoore · 2009-04-29, 22:14

I see now that the +2131 numbers are using the 384K all-complex FFTs on the Pentium D, but the Athlon is using the 384K size for all three sequences. Looks like it would make sense to do as many +40291 and +41693 numbers as possible on the Athlon and do all the +2131 numbers on the Pentium.

2131 has always had higher crossover sizes for FFT lengths.

2009-03-04, 17:45	#29
philmoore "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 2×13×43 Posts	Ben, you probably took a 20% hit increase, but rounding makes it look a little worse (0.007 to 0.009). Engracio's last reservation takes us into the million-digit range, and we are close to completing up to 900,000 digits! I'm hoping we can find another probable prime soon and speed up the progress. I just uploaded more work files. Last fiddled with by philmoore on 2009-03-07 at 21:55 Reason: moved posts between threads

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
P-1 discussion thread	Rincewind	Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem	57	2011-02-06 21:53
Sieving discussion thread	jasong	Twin Prime Search	311	2010-10-22 18:41
Sieving discussion thread	philmoore	Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem	66	2010-02-10 14:34
Theological Discussion Thread	clowns789	Soap Box	3	2006-03-09 04:05
New Sieve Thread Discussion	Citrix	Prime Sierpinski Project	15	2005-08-29 13:56

2009-02-10, 09:31	#23
paleseptember Jun 2008 Wollongong, .au 3×61 Posts	Ahhhh, I'm getting crazy temperatures under full load. Like >95C on all four cores. At rest they drop back down to 70C. Am going to have to clean the case asap, and maybe consider a better CPU heatsinkfanthing. But, as I currently have a cold/flu/death/thing, and the five minutes spent downloading, installing, and watching the temps on the programme is the longest I've been out of bed in the past eight hours, that is a thought for tomorrow, when I'm lucid and actually able to string two thoughts together in a row. And type properly.

2009-02-23, 17:30	#25
philmoore "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 2×13×43 Posts	Good news - I double-checked 21 of Ben's results from February 9th and 10th when he reported throttling due to overheating, and all 21 of my residues agree with his.

2009-03-04, 00:57	#26
paleseptember Jun 2008 Wollongong, .au 3·61 Posts	Somewhere during the 3.26M file we've hit the transition from FFT length 320K to 384K. I've taken a hit from 0.007s to 0.009s per iteration. Ouch. Ah well, onwards we march :)

2009-03-04, 09:38	#27
paleseptember Jun 2008 Wollongong, .au 183₁₀ Posts	Go engracio go! \o\ \o\| \|o\| \|o/ /o/ (I know full well that this will be deleted within a day or so, but every bit of encouragement helps, right?)

2009-04-28, 16:42	#30
philmoore "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 2·13·43 Posts	Ouch, it looks like FFT size has increased again, from 384K to 448K. I am guessing that it may have happened somewhere in the middle of Engracio's current range, does anyone else have any data on that? On the other hand, my old Athlon XP system at home is still using 384K for the exponents in the 3.93-3.94M range, so I may shift a few exponents over to that, but it is slow, around 40 hours per test.

2009-04-28, 19:44	#32
engracio May 2007 11² Posts	Yea Phil, I've just glanced on the wu's and they are still in the 384K range at 3.83m.

2009-04-29, 22:14	#33
philmoore "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 2·13·43 Posts	I see now that the +2131 numbers are using the 384K all-complex FFTs on the Pentium D, but the Athlon is using the 384K size for all three sequences. Looks like it would make sense to do as many +40291 and +41693 numbers as possible on the Athlon and do all the +2131 numbers on the Pentium. 2131 has always had higher crossover sizes for FFT lengths.